• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why did Kerry loose the election?

Why did Kerry loose the election?

  • He didn't loose anything - Bush beat him fair and square.

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • The gay marriage amendements for 11 states drew a large moral croud - larger than normal.

    Votes: 12 17.9%
  • Kerry used Hollywood too much, this caused folks to dislike him.

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • His Vietnam history was controversal, and the conversative crowd ate it up.

    Votes: 8 11.9%
  • Personality, Bush is more likeable.

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • Total voters
    67

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,955
Reaction score
6,067
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why did Kerry lose the election?

Why did Kerry lose the election?
 
Last edited:

MSR

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
100
Reaction score
3
Location
Dallas, Texas
Because he believed everything was the wrong decision at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. By his own words he convinced the majority of Americans that he was wrong. Most people understand that just because these are tough times doesn't mean that everything is bad and that everything we are doing is wrong.

Most Americans understand that a leader needs to be willing to make decisions that are tough without being accused of being wrong. What is wrong for France or Russia is not necessarily wrong for the US.

I saw an interesting stat. There is one characteristic that always wins for Presidential candidates every time... only one. And that is the candidate who is the most optimistic... the most positive about America always wins. I was honestly concerned with that one would not hold true this time.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
The Democrats promised to raise taxes; The Republicans promised to continue reducing taxes.

On this basis alone, the Republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and beat Kerry, or any candidate the Democrats could have run against him.

Irrespective of the doom and gloom of media economic reports, the average American is far more prosperous than most people believe and the trend toward greater individual wealth continues.

So long as the Democrats continue to hew to their traditional tax posture, they will continue to lose elections.

People remember the 1993 'tax reform', the largest tax increase in history, which included, for the first time, an onerous tax on social security benefits and an extension of the detested 'marriage penalty' -- courtesy of the Democrats.

They also remember the several welcome tax reductions that have followed; with the promise of more to come -- courtesy of the Republicans.
 

Winter Ivy

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
Fantasea said:
The Democrats promised to raise taxes; The Republicans promised to continue reducing taxes.

On this basis alone, the Republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and beat Kerry, or any candidate the Democrats could have run against him.

Irrespective of the doom and gloom of media economic reports, the average American is far more prosperous than most people believe and the trend toward greater individual wealth continues.
Depends on whether you're looking at the mean, median, or mode. Although the "mean" American is prospering, the "mode" ones are not -- and when you get right down to it, mode is more indicative of overall quality of life.

So long as the Democrats continue to hew to their traditional tax posture, they will continue to lose elections.
There were an unusual number of Wharton students and professors supporting Kerry this year on the basis of long-term fiscal health. I'm not a business aficionado, but that made me shudder.

Quite honestly, I think the Dems lost because they didn't learn from the Republicans' success in the 1990s. IOW, they're still trying to "capture the middle undecided voters" instead of catering to their base.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
The Democrats promised to raise taxes; The Republicans promised to continue reducing taxes.

On this basis alone, the Republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and beat Kerry, or any candidate the Democrats could have run against him.
Can someone explain to me, for this question has been bugging me for quite a while. Why is it considered patriotic to surrender your life for your country, yet somehow un-American to surrender your money?
Is money more important than life?

And for the record, Kerry was going to restore tax rates on those making over $200,000 a year. Not quite the same thing as "raising taxes."

Kerry lost because Americans have forgotten what it means to be an American...and because eleven states had gay marriage initiatives on their ballots. That brings the homophobes out of the woodwork...they voted on it in September here in Louisiana and had a record turnout for a non-federal election. Hmmm, and why is it that these ballot initiatives turned up on the Presidential election ballot and not earlier? hmmmm.....weird...do I smell a Rove?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
People remember the 1993 'tax reform', the largest tax increase in history, which included, for the first time, an onerous tax on social security benefits and an extension of the detested 'marriage penalty' -- courtesy of the Democrats.<Fantasea

Actually, the largest tax increase in history was under president Reagan.

Yes, that's right...Reagan...Gee, wasn't he supposed to be the one who lowered taxes? Nah, that's just Republican spin.

In 1982, Reagan signed a 91 billion tax increase into law.
This was the largest tax increase based on the value of the dollar at the time. ( Look it up in any encyclopedia if you doubt my word)

Reagan cut taxes about 33 billion in 1981...raised taxes by 91 billion in 1982...and raised taxes again in 1988.

Clinton's 1993 economic plan passed without a single Republican vote.
Why?
Because it raised taxes on only the wealthy and helped turn a 300 billion deficit into a huge surplus.

>remember the several welcome tax reductions that have followed; with the promise of more to come -- courtesy of the Republicans. <fantasea

What tax reductions?!
Bush cut funding to states, who were forced to cut local funding, thus raising all of our state and local taxes, making any Bush tax cut negligible.

The real reason Kerry lost the race for the White House?

Voters are not likely to dispose a sitting President during a time of war, even a war based on less than honorable intentions.

Without the war In Iraq, Bush would not be President.

Plus, I believe right wing distortions of Kerry's record, Swift Boat Vets, flip/flop..etc...etc...also led to Kerry's defeat.

Clinton knew how to fight back when attacked, thus negating any damage the GOP tried to inflict.

Kerry lost the White House because he didn't fight as dirty as the Bush spin machine.

Hoot
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mixedmedia said:
Can someone explain to me, for this question has been bugging me for quite a while. Why is it considered patriotic to surrender your life for your country, yet somehow un-American to surrender your money?
Is money more important than life?

And for the record, Kerry was going to restore tax rates on those making over $200,000 a year. Not quite the same thing as "raising taxes."

Kerry lost because Americans have forgotten what it means to be an American...and because eleven states had gay marriage initiatives on their ballots. That brings the homophobes out of the woodwork...they voted on it in September here in Louisiana and had a record turnout for a non-federal election. Hmmm, and why is it that these ballot initiatives turned up on the Presidential election ballot and not earlier? hmmmm.....weird...do I smell a Rove?
Partiotism and fiscal conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

As I wrote earlier, the vote was not against Kerry, nor was it for Bush. The vote was against the Democrat's penchant for raising taxes on everyone and for the Republican's reputation for reducing taxes for everyone who pays taxes.

On the subject of same-sex marriage; and, since you have dragged it into the discussion, of homosexuality in general, when a person has the right to freely exercise a choice, why should he be criticized because he voted in a way that you don't approve? The American way has always been to discuss political views in the open and settle the argument in the privacy of the voting booth.

You may recall the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, passed with overwhelming Republican support and signed into law by then President Clinton. Part of it reads: `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'

It would seem that the eleven to zero result on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives is a resounding statement by the people that they reject the actions of liberal judges who legislate from the bench whatever the lefty-lib-dem politicians can't get passed in Congress.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea wrote: As I wrote earlier, the vote was not against Kerry, nor was it for Bush. The vote was against the Democrat's penchant for raising taxes on everyone and for the Republican's reputation for reducing taxes for everyone who pays taxes.

Well, you know, that is a shallow and distinctly unthoughtful reason for voting for George Bush.
That may be the reason you voted against John Kerry but that was not the primary reason for most people according to the polls.
So answer my question, is it patriotic to surrender your life, but not your money?

On the subject of same-sex marriage; and, since you have dragged it into the discussion, of homosexuality in general, when a person has the right to freely exercise a choice, why should he be criticized because he voted in a way that you don't approve? The American way has always been to discuss political views in the open and settle the argument in the privacy of the voting booth.

First of all, I didn't drag it into the conversation. It was part of the poll and I was asked why I thought George Bush won. I don't have a problem with people voting how they see fit. I do have a problem with the manipulation of homophobes who came out to vote in a presidential election when they might not have otherwise. It is underhanded and exposes the right's relish for manipulatory politics - and, of course, their bad character. I love how you guys chronically avoid the crux of my arguments.

You may recall the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, passed with overwhelming Republican support and signed into law by then President Clinton. Part of it reads: `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'
It would seem that the eleven to zero result on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives is a resounding statement by the people that they reject the actions of liberal judges who legislate from the bench whatever the lefty-lib-dem politicians can't get passed in Congress.


Oh, so I dragged it into the argument? I love it. Well let me take this opportunity to drag it a little further down the road. Keep your word "marriage," okay? Today I formally announce that I am not married. I would prefer my relationship to be one of a civil union, one that just might possibly mean something because its something that people are fighting for.
You know, like most people, I have witnessed a wide variety of relationships throughout my life. My maternal grandparents were married to each other a total of four times. Yes, they divorced three times. Of all the relationships that have been in or close to my family, only two have been long-lasting and committed. That of my aunt and her female partner, together 25 years, and that my mom's close friends, two men, together for 45 years until one of them died of brain cancer just a couple of years ago. (And, as an aside, he was a well-respected, well-loved high school science teacher - one whose classes parents clamored to get their children into - yeah, times have changed.)
So keep your marriage, okay, because it's a sham. It means nothing. And I want nothing to do with a meaningless formality, now being cloaked in sanctity by the morality brigade that would give the the marriages of Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears and even my own grandparents more legitimacy than those of the most loving and committed relationships that I know of.
Yeah, I'm feeling a little combative this morning. But the world is going to hell in a hand basket and I can't bear to hear all this babble about taxes and oooohhhhh, gay marriage. What a joke.
 

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
In my humble opinion

Christians decided it was time to stop losing their rights through judges who have mistaken themselves for legislation writers instead of strict constitution intepreters. I believe you will see Christians become more stirred up especially after the liberal judges put the 'humbug' on Christmas musicals, displays and readings while ignoring Mennorah, Kwanza and other beliefs during the holidays. I really believe where the Democrats and Kerry in particular 'missed it' is think only RIGHT WING WACK jobs believe in God. That simply isn't so, with 90% of the people in America believing in God, 82% Christians and CHristian Churches out numbering other religions churches 200-1 it HAS to be obvious that God isn't just a RW Republican buth rather the God of the majority of people in this country regardless of political name tags. :violin
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
So answer my question, is it patriotic to surrender your life, but not your money?
A little earlier, I responded by saying that patriotism and economic conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

You know, like most people, I have witnessed a wide variety of relationships throughout my life. My maternal grandparents were married to each other a total of four times. Yes, they divorced three times. Of all the relationships that have been in or close to my family, only two have been long-lasting and committed. That of my aunt and her female partner, together 25 years, and that my mom's close friends, two men, together for 45 years until one of them died of brain cancer just a couple of years ago. (And, as an aside, he was a well-respected, well-loved high school science teacher - one whose classes parents clamored to get their children into - yeah, times have changed.)
So keep your marriage, okay, because it's a sham. It means nothing. And I want nothing to do with a meaningless formality, now being cloaked in sanctity by the morality brigade that would give the the marriages of Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears and even my own grandparents more legitimacy than those of the most loving and committed relationships that I know of.
Yeah, I'm feeling a little combative this morning. But the world is going to hell in a hand basket and I can't bear to hear all this babble about taxes and oooohhhhh, gay marriage. What a joke.
I sincerely and deeply regret the anguish of those who have been denied the myriad delights and pleasures which flow sweetly and profusely from a state of connubial bliss. However, this neither justifies the abandonment of a tradition as old as recorded history, nor the ignoring of federal law.
 

pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
205
Reaction score
1
Location
Illinois
Overall I think was an issue of love and hate. A majority of the people voted because they loved or hated George W. Bush. Either way Bush was the issue. My personal belief is that love is a greater motivator than hate. A lot of young people seemed to hate Bush and not really know why. More people are bound to vote out of love.

I am suprised that the whole Flip-Flopping issue has not been brought up by anyone. Kerry DID change his mind on a lot of issues. It is hard to deny that (though some of you will try). How could Kerry allow Bush to start a war with Iraq, then not vote for the 87 billion to fund the troops? Saying it was a "protest vote".

Kerry seemed to say what was popular. I don't think Kerry had our country's best intrests in mind. He just wanted to be President. Bush cares about the good of america and the world. He went into Iraq knowing that it would hurt his chances of being reelected and he did it anyways, because he felt it was the right thing to do. What does this say about Bush?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Well it's a good thing the Republican party used retarded issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion to steer the American public away from the real issues and the source of all the Bush Administration's lies in Foriegn Policy and the Economy.

Yeehaa! But that's the American WAY!!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
Well it's a good thing the Republican party used retarded issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion to steer the American public away from the real issues and the source of all the Bush Administration's lies in Foriegn Policy and the Economy.

Yeehaa! But that's the American WAY!!
It was all over the first time Kerry said, 'I'm going to take back the Bush tax break.', and Bush responded by saying, 'Not only am I gonna keep that tax break in place, but yer gonna git another one, too.'

The only reason Bush received the majority he did was because, in the secrecy of the voting booth, millions of registered Democrats crossed over and voted for him.
 
J

Jufarius87

i really wish people would stop complainin about the rich im gonna present the facts right now from the most recent congressional budget analysis

during the bush adminstration even with tax cuts the top 1% payed 35% of the taxes top 20% payed payed about 80% of the taxes the rich were doing their

wouldnt you dems out there like to be rich one day most american aspire to be in a better financial bracket so why would they want to in the words of rush limbaugh "soak the rich"

also cutting corperate taxes is good for the economy it keeps the stock market healthy and gives corperations more money to tinker around w/ R&D (tech work which is still done in this country mind you)

if u overtax the rich the stock market takes a beating and when the stock market goes down enough we have something called "the great depression" everytime it looked like kerry was gonna win we saw a downturn in the stock market

also yes bush isnt the best out there i dont agree w/ everything he says and his economic policy could stand a SLIGHT raise in upper class taxes (not as much as the liberals want) but he won the election thanks to karl rove the campaigning genius of this century
 
J

Jufarius87

forgive the double post but heyjoeo i would say the murder of innocent children and the degrading of a spiritual tradition that has been in human culture for millenia are perfectly reasonable issues to work with for a camapaign
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Jufarius87 said:
wouldnt you dems out there like to be rich one day most american aspire to be in a better financial bracket
Many of those who would like to be better off, financially, realize that they never will because they have been 'had' by their party leaders who seduced them into accepting all kinds of rights and entitlements, including sub-standard public school educations that have left them on the outside, looking in at those who are able to succeed in this age of high tech.

Envy? Isn't that what results from the constant harping on diversity; the dividing of the populace into politically correct groups that are then pitted against each other? Yet, they have the hypocritical gall to call for unity.

All these unfortunates can do, now, is listen to their 'advocates' chant that wealth should be taxed away from those who do have it and redistributed to those who do not have it.

So, they root for that.

Never gonna happen.
 

out of the blue

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Kerry lost because:

1. he was seen as "pro-gay marriage"
2. a few inopportune photos
3. his wife
4. the "global test"
5. his phony attempt to portray himself as a hunter
6. too much emphasis on his war hero status
 
Last edited:
J

Jufarius87

who exactly are u trying to blame?

public schools suck maybe if the liberals stoped wasting money on handouts / welfare/ medicaid/ we could relocate the funds to fix something worthwhile like education also my party is generally the one for vouchers so people can choose to put their childrn into privaliged private schools

the people you speek of that have been "had" are primarily uneducated non college going people who are caught in the crossfire of outsourcing they're in trouble because the last decent paying uneducated jobs are leaving the country a short term problem requiring re-education for the victems of outsourcing? yes a long term problem that like the liberals like kerry said should punish those countries that send jobs overseas? no because as uneducated jobs are outsourced corperate profits and R&D are increased creating more jobs for the educated
basically this means college education will become more vital in the future i see no problem with that
also nobody has tried to prove me wrong as far as debunking your tax the rich complaints goes
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Jufarius87 said:
who exactly are u trying to blame?

public schools suck maybe if the liberals stoped wasting money on handouts / welfare/ medicaid/ we could relocate the funds to fix something worthwhile like education
It was Clinton, in March of 1997, who established the Welfare to Work program.
This ended welfare as we know it, and required welfare recipients to get job training and get off the welfare rolls, instead of making a lifetime of living off the government.
FYI...the welfare rolls have increased under the current President.
Maybe you're voting for the wrong party?

Now if we could do something about ending the corporate welfare under President Bush, we'd really be getting somewhere.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Hoot said:
It was Clinton, in March of 1997, who established the Welfare to Work program.
This ended welfare as we know it, and required welfare recipients to get job training and get off the welfare rolls, instead of making a lifetime of living off the government.
FYI...the welfare rolls have increased under the current President.
Maybe you're voting for the wrong party?

Now if we could do something about ending the corporate welfare under President Bush, we'd really be getting somewhere.
I know you're a stickler for detail, so let me remind you of a few details that, perhaps, have escaped your attention.

The 10 point plan known as The Contract With America, proposed by Newt Gingrich, who was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, embodied sweeping changes in the welfare system.

President Clinton vetoed the Republican sponsored legislation the first time it was passed by the House and Senate. He vetoed the Republican sponsored legislation the second time it was passed by the House and Senate. Finally, the third time it was passed by the House and the Senate, he caved in and signed the Republican sponsored Workfare legislation. By that time, the Monica Mess was raging and, as you may recall, Bill was scrambling for things to push that stuff off the front pages. I wonder whether there was any connection?

Fast forward to today. Perhaps, if the Democrats would stop interfering with and opposing any and every Administration move to improve the business climate and the economy, more jobs would be created, incomes would increase, and welfare costs would drop.

But the Democrats can't do that, can they? No, their mission is to regain power. How can they regain power if the economy improves, more jobs are created, incomes increase, and welfare costs drop?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
>The 10 point plan known as The Contract With America, proposed by Newt Gingrich, who was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, embodied sweeping changes in the welfare system.<Fantasea

Are you sure that wasn't the "Contract ON America?"

>President Clinton vetoed the Republican sponsored legislation the first time it was passed by the House and Senate. He vetoed the Republican sponsored legislation the second time it was passed by the House and Senate. Finally, the third time it was passed by the House and the Senate, he caved in and signed the Republican sponsored Workfare legislation<Fantasea

To be fair, the first two pieces of legislation that Clinton vetoed were virtually identical...both were soft on work and tough on children. Both failed to provide child care and healthcare and imposed deep and unacceptable cuts in school lunches and help for disabled children.

The legislation Clinton finally signed provided an additional 4 billion for child care that the previous two bills seriously neglected.

Clinton believed it was impossible to ask a mother on welfare to go to work if her children would be neglected...simple common sense.

Republicans resented Clinton because they believed he was stealing issues that had always been Republican issues...welfare reform, balanced budget...etc.

They were in such a hurry to beat Clinton at his own game that they passed flawed legislation...that's why Clinton vetoed those two bills.

Would Republicans prefer abortion, or child care, enabling a mother to get off welfare and go to work?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Hoot [QUOTE said:
Are you sure that wasn't the "Contract ON America?"
That was the 'dig' by the socialist-lib-dems who could see many of their lies exposed. Here's the story:

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)
 

skabanger13

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Location
texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
the reason he lost is becus hes a mooron, its as simple as that :monkey
 
Top Bottom